Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The proposed area are the wetlands of the Zambezi delta in the districts of Chinde, Inhassunge and Quelimane. The delta area is where most of the 400,000 ha of mangroves in the Mozambique are concentrated. The area provides nursery grounds for hundreds of species of fish, is a global destination of rare and migratory birds, home to Mozambique’s largest population of Cape Buffalo as well and hundreds of elephants and thousands of ungulates, breeding ground for at least three species of marine turtles, and nursery grounds for humpback whales and containing intact pockets of Swahili Coastal Forest. Mangroves provide coastal protection and protection against cyclones and floods, with mangrove sediments sequestering hundreds of times more carbon than even tropical rainforest. Mangroves also protect seagrass beds from sedimentation. The area is not a KBA, has a moderate Species Range-Size Rarity and is not Intact forest Landscape.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area scores high for Irrecoverable Carbon.
Evidence B:The selected area is part of the irrecoverable carbon area, as most of it are under mangrove covered area
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The indigenous territory, as well as the populations that inhabit them, continued with customary / traditional governance as they are peoples that have their own cultural habits and customs; as the area is remote, with much of it only accessible by water, the reach of modern government is limited here. The ethnic groups are Chuabo and Lomuè, with matrilineal family systems where women are the heads of households (HH) but political parties have pushed to re-establish a male dominated hierarchical system, damaging traditional structures. However, these IPLCs currently maintain this customary form of territorial governance although they have been exposed to various challenges and different socio-economic circumstances and paradigms.
Evidence B:No…despite having some rural communities, most part of the area is under MADAL management, a private entity.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The EoI mainly describes the livelihood importance of the area; IPLCs tried to re-establish their traditional crops, yet maintaining a link to the commercial world through coconut company Madal. With the collapse of Madal and the other coconut companies, as a result of the plant epidemics, IPLCs have continued to survive by (over) exploitation of natural and marine resources, coupled with coconut production and agriculture on a much smaller scale. The EoI is limited in describing the cultural significance, other than that the local population has been living in the area for thousands of years, is traditionally a matrilineal society and are a mix of both Muslim and Catholic, with a liberal mixture of local tradition. Prayer is as likely to be on the beach, or at the foot of a baobab tree, as in a formal place of worship.
Evidence B:The text does not justify the cultural significance of the area for the local communities. It describes the techniques that can promote sustainable management of fishing
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Several actions contribute to the destruction of mangroves, including cutting the mangroves to use wood for the construction of boats, fences and various household items, use of mangroves as wood fuel for domestic purposes, deforestation for the construction of infrastructure for housing and industry, extraction of salt by cutting down mangroves to make salt pans, slash and burn agriculture practice, over-exploitation of marine resources caused by crop epidemics, climate change impacts, floods, drought, cyclones, sea level rise, soil erosion, wetlands degradation and deforestation. The area has medim to very high cumulative development pressures, some forest loss between 2000-2019, twolarge neighbouring land deals. Mozambique scores 62 on the 2019 Global Index Map and Flower Plot. According to Global Witness, at least 1 land defender has been killed in Mozambique between 2016-2018.
Evidence B:There is a clear listing of the threats associated with the area
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Mozambique’s legal framework allows for the recognition of IPLC ownership of lands (DUATs) and control of forests (community forest concessions) (RRI 2015); While recognition of customary rights is established in law, full recognition requires a specific process of demarcation. ~19.1 Mha of land have been recognized by the government as owned by IPLCs and with another 1 MHa of forest land recognized as under IPLC control. In total, this represents approximately 25% of the country’s total land area. (RRI 2015). According to Landmark about half of customarily-administered lands have yet to be recognized. The Agrarian Policy gives priority to the development of agricultural activities to achieve food security in the country based on the sustainable use of natural resources; The Land Policy that aims to consolidate the population’s rights over land and other natural resources while promoting investment and the sustainable and equitable use of these resources; The Environmental Policy that aims to ensure that the environment and natural resources maintain their functional and productive capacity for current and future generations; The Law and Regulations for the Conservation of Biodiversity; The STRATEGIC PLAN (SP) OF THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF CONSERVATION AREAS - ANAC (2015 - 2024) which has the general objective of guiding national and international efforts to fully realize the potential existing in the country’s conservation areas through sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity.
Evidence B:The proposal list the most important legal framework associated that enable the community based conservation, despite weak description of their direct relation
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: CBD reports mention that some programmes on community management of natural resources are being implemented. Grupo MADAL (coconut company) received funding (750,000.00 USD) from the Ministry of Economy and Finance - Catalytic Fund for Innovation and Demonstration (FCID) to set up an ingrowers’ irrigation scheme on part of its land and to set up a farm school for IPLCs that use their land.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: IPLC in the Zambezi delta have worked with the other project partners on a number of conservation initiatives.
Evidence B:There is a list of implemented project, but not evidence the projects led by local communities. The list are based on capacity building and research projects
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Complementary projects and in-kind contributions mentioned are mainly initiatives of MADAL Company and not IPLC-led, but are related to project objectives.
Evidence B:Potential only one project can be complementar to the activities. Other listed initiatives are not necessarily connected to conservation
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Although submitted by NANA, an IPLC organization, the project seems to be driven by MADAL forestry and agricultural company that has a 100+ year relationship with the IPLCs (especially the answer to Q 11 suggests this). They share common interest of better environmental management as well as livelihood / economic company interests. The project includes participatory zoning of community areas and establishment of CBNRM committees to manage community resources and involvement of local leaders who seem to adhere the project in a handwritten letter in Portuguese, which seem to be clear IPCL-led components, but the proposal is not very clear on strengthening land (use) rights of IPLCs.
Evidence B:There is very weak alignment. This projects sounds more like a Corporate Social Responsibility project, rather then and empowerment of local communities project
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Activities described on 3 main results; restored landscape; reviving traditional cultural sustainable resource management habits and catalyze economic alternatives. This is a comprehensive set of activities but more clarity needed on strengthening land (use) rights of IPLCs.
Evidence B:The three results presented are not connected, and does not reflect the focus on local community led in conservation. Some activities under the results, may have a great impact if could be placed under the same result
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The objectives and activities have a clear relationship with the identified threats and have potential to increase IPLC capacity and livelihoods as well as strengthen IPLC structures and culture.
Evidence B:There are not direct link. However the restoration activities might directly contribute to reduce the habitat loss as result of some of the threats
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The EoI expresses it needs the maximum contribution of GEF of US$ 2M and on top a contribution of Grupo MADAL of US$ 350,000,-. The activities listed and the scale proposed make it plausible that the project can be implemented with this budget.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The EoI seeks maximum contribution of GEF, but includes co-financing opportunities by MADAL, see previous question and the projects and in-kind funding listed are almost all MADAL-related, except one project funded by USAID.
Evidence B:There is list of some initiatives implemented, but no clear evidence of co-financing
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The estimated total area under improved management is 100,030 Ha
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The project will monitor community well-being using the Simple Poverty Scorecard for Mozambique that uses a number of proxy indicators to determine if the family is over or under the Mozambique poverty line of USD 1.99 per person per day. This seems to be limited to livelihood and not include cultural indicators.
Evidence B:No reface of indicators. The proposal pushes to refer to the poverty score card tool for Mozambique, which has general indicators, and not specific to the project
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The EoI explains that all actions proposed in this document are built on the historical relationship between MADAL and the indigenous communities with which it has had 100+ years of cooperation. Sustainability is built around this relationship, which uses the private sector for the benefit of both parties. This seems to be a limited interpretation of sustainability as it seems to keep the communities dependent on one company.
Evidence B:Not at all.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The EoI explains to which national priorities the project contributes; (i) reducing the direct and indirect causes of biodiversity degradation and loss, (ii) improving the state of biodiversity, safeguarding the diversity of ecosystems, habitats , of species and genes; (iii) improving the sharing of benefits from biodiversity and the services provided by ecosystems for all IPLCs and (iv) improving implementation through participatory and inclusive planning, knowledge management and training, but does not explicitly relate this to National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of Mozambique.
Evidence B:There are no clear references of the strategies, plans and other relevant national priorities
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The areas are traditionally matrilineal, though subsequent colonization and independence has overlaid this with patrilineal structures which have gone a long way to disenfranchising women. Women’s empowerment will focus on girls today and women mothers of tomorrow. NANA and MAJOL have many good experiences of using REFLECT in special protection of girls (protection of indigenous girls against cultural habits such as the example of premature marriages and initiation rites). This seems to be a limited gender approach to only focus on girls.
Evidence B:Despite mentioning the experience of the proposed on the REFLECT approach, the proposal does not mainstream gender approach for the project
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The project includes capacity building of indigenous leadership in environmental awareness and reviving traditional cultural aspects as well as aims for participatory zoning of community areas and establishment of CBNRM committees to manage community resources, but lack clarity on community land (use) rights and the whole project depends very much on involvement of one company.
Evidence B:No. It is more of agriculture based alternatives associated with restoration of mangrove areas…no evidence of innovation that could be scaled
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Although submitted by an IPLC organization there is a strong involvement of one company with which the IPLCs have a 100+ year relationship. The project includes several aspects of building IPLC capacity.
Evidence B:The organization fits more under a CSO that works directly with local communities.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The organization coordinates at least one network of local PICL organizations, community-based organizations or other civil society groups active in one or more regions of the country. The organization has one or more projects led by PICL but these are run from their base in an urban center. Both staff and organization have demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work.
Evidence B:The led proposed has show some collaborative works in supporting the establishment of Community Based Organization for sustainable management of natural resources, but these efforts are not reflected in the activities and concept of the proposal
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The 2 parners listed are a Developmental consultancy with years of experience as a partner and pro-bono advisor to NANA and Grupo Madal, SARL, a Mozambican plantation agriculture company with 100+ years of experience working with IPCL contract farming and offtaking, recently under new management and trading as ‘Novo Madal.’ No IPLC listed explicitly as partners, but the activities include participatory zoning of community areas and establishment of CBNRM committees to manage community resources, which suggests the IPLC communities as implementing partners.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Staff and partner organizations has relevant skills and experience and past projects demonstrate a track record of capacities necssary for the project.
Evidence B:There is a lot of consultancy experience and not related to the interaction with local communities.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The average annual budget for NANA is 775.000,00 USD. The largest annual budget for any project that the organization is currently implementing is in a range of US$100.000 to US$1.000.000 per year. The organization’s funding comes, from at least, 10 sources. No source proves more than 20%. The organization regularly produces reports, internal and external audits and financial statements that put on place to management and administration as a way of accountability to its partners and stakeholders in a timely manner. External audits are carried out annually, recommendations are implemented and an annual financial report is published and made available to the public. Two projects listed over $200,000,
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Answered yes but no explanation to the extent.
Evidence B:NA